Sunday Downtime - All Evolve Media Sites are being migrated to a new data center Sunday Dec 11, 2016. The migration will occur during an 8 AM to 2 PM (Pacific Time) maintenance window. We will have up to 1 hour of downtime for any of our sites.

The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

to make teams more even ? they could do this without the players agreeing to cap.

to give teams more opportunity to retain their own players ? they couldnt this without the players agreeing to a cap.

what is their goal really and why cant they find a way to do it outside the context of a cap ?

or is their goal to simply solidify and raise their franchise values, which of course a cap is the only way to guarantee this.

and if thats their goal, why should we as fans support them ?

dr

Of course...everything they are doing is for THEMSELVES. They aren't doing anything for the fans but with all that PR garbage they put out fans support them because they think the Owners are with the Fans.

I am on the owners side, dont get me wrong, BUT their goal is for half of them to get cost certainty on the fact that these franchises were/are bad investments. The NHL was way too hyped as to what it would be 10 years ago and now the owners want to fix that

You can debate the owners' goals, although they're pretty clear to me.

What I don't think can be debated is the players' goals. They're in it for the money, and that's all there is to it. There's no parity, retaining players, teams, fans, or Stanley Cups in their world. It's all about leaving the door open for unlimited salaries.

At the end of this season 400 more contracts expire. Essentially let all those horrible (except Yashin, Jagr and a few odds) contracts simply EXPIRE.

Objective of lockout: Like pushing the reset button on the back of your calculator. Everything goes black for a second, a few odd symbols flash, then old faithfull 0 appears.

Even if they dont get a cap, if in 2 years the first few RFA signings are 'reasonable' and used as comparable for all the others, the building blocks for a good luxury tax system will be in place. At worse case they could do the same CBA as the old one but now knowing what happens put a few band aids.

30 different owners probably imply there are 30 different goals. I do not pretend to know all of them.

Here is one of the scariest goals it is a direct quote from Atlanta Thrashers owner Stan Kasten:

"Let's face it, hockey does not have a high profile right now. The top cadre of players aren't well known enough. What can we do for a TV contract? Increase our appeal. The league won't like me saying this, but Jarome Iginla, Martin St. Louis, Rick Nash - these players have to be in (bigger markets). Your best and brightest young players have to be in your biggest
media markets to give us a fighting chance."

30 different owners probably imply there are 30 different goals. I do not pretend to know all of them.

Here is one of the scariest goals it is a direct quote from Atlanta Thrashers owner Stan Kasten:

"Let's face it, hockey does not have a high profile right now. The top cadre of players aren't well known enough. What can we do for a TV contract? Increase our appeal. The league won't like me saying this, but Jarome Iginla, Martin St. Louis, Rick Nash - these players have to be in (bigger markets). Your best and brightest young players have to be in your biggest
media markets to give us a fighting chance."

You know that's very interesting, and maybe one of the benefits the league sees with a hard cap is increased free agency which would make it possible for those guys to go to those big markets, and in their prime.

You can debate the owners' goals, although they're pretty clear to me.

What I don't think can be debated is the players' goals. They're in it for the money, and that's all there is to it. There's no parity, retaining players, teams, fans, or Stanley Cups in their world. It's all about leaving the door open for unlimited salaries.

Why should we support them?

what are the owners goals and why cant they find a solution wihtout a lockout ? they are the ones who has shut things down, so they should bear the burden of coming up with a solution to save the season.

You know that's very interesting, and maybe one of the benefits the league sees with a hard cap is increased free agency which would make it possible for those guys to go to those big markets, and in their prime.

Actually, a cap makes it more likely that premiere players can remain in small markets. Look no further than the NFL. Who are some of the game's biggest names?
Brett Favre - Green Bay
Peyton Manning - Indianapolis
Randy Moss - Minneapolis
Julius Peppers - Charlotte
LaDanian Tomlinson - San Diego

Actually, a cap makes it more likely that premiere players can remain in small markets. Look no further than the NFL. Who are some of the game's biggest names?
Brett Favre - Green Bay
Peyton Manning - Indianapolis
Randy Moss - Minneapolis
Julius Peppers - Charlotte
LaDanian Tomlinson - San Diego

for the zillionth time, there are no small markets in the NFL due to ts massive revenue sharing.

He is clearly familiar with the inner workings of the Atlanta Thrashers since he has served as their president, TBS's vice president for sports teams, Atlanta Braves president, Atlanta Hawks president. He has helped to design and run Turner Field (baseball) and Phillip[s Arena (Thrashers and Hawks home).

I suppose that is called plausable deniability. Owner lovers do not like what he said so they try to show as large a distance as possible from him and them exist.

for the zillionth time, there are no small markets in the NFL due to ts massive revenue sharing.

It's not revenue sharing so much as it is the cap that makes big market vs. small market an irrelevancy in the NFL.
The fact remains that, despite revenue sharing - which accounts for only 2/3 of total revenues - NFL teams in larger markets make more money in a given year than teams in smaller markets.
This from a USA Today story over the summer:With changing economics driven largely by stadium deals (and luxury boxes), the difference in annual revenue for the richest teams, such as the Redskins, and lower-revenue teams, such as the Colts, is more than $100 million, according to some NFL executives.
So, as you can see, there are significant revenue disparities in the NFL despite revenue sharing.
What prevents those disparities from influencing teams' ability to compete on a mostly level playing field is the cap. Therefore, Indy can re-sign Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison to long-term deals despite having $100 million less in the bank than the Redskins. Ditto for the Packers and Favre, the Chargers and Tomlinson, the Vikings and Moss, etc.

It's not revenue sharing so much as it is the cap that makes big market vs. small market an irrelevancy in the NFL.
The fact remains that, despite revenue sharing - which accounts for only 2/3 of total revenues - NFL teams in larger markets make more money in a given year than teams in smaller markets.
This from a USA Today story over the summer:With changing economics driven largely by stadium deals (and luxury boxes), the difference in annual revenue for the richest teams, such as the Redskins, and lower-revenue teams, such as the Colts, is more than $100 million, according to some NFL executives.
So, as you can see, there are significant revenue disparities in the NFL despite revenue sharing.
What prevents those disparities from influencing teams' ability to compete on a mostly level playing field is the cap. Therefore, Indy can re-sign Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison to long-term deals despite having $100 million less in the bank than the Redskins. Ditto for the Packers and Favre, the Chargers and Tomlinson, the Vikings and Moss, etc.

Even if one team makes $100 million or whatever less than another, that team still has the revenue to sign anybody it wants cap or no cap,and they still make a profit. There are no poor teams.

Someone made the argument to me the other day when talking about ticket prices that there is one market, not 30, for hockey players. Well if thats true for hockey, it has to be true for the NFL. Its a much more national league with realitively little local revenue.

What about Michael Vick people will ask. Atlanta just signed him to a 10 year deal(and with the way he plays, that is really ill advised). Well, thats great, but it includes a $37 million signing bonus. The NFL generates about 3 times the revenue of the NHL. So in NHL terms, that $37 million is roughly $12 million. How could Calgary or Edmonton afford that bonus (upfront) to keep their stars?

When you have corporate ownership, exactly who is the owner is not exactly clear at all times.

If you took the time to check the Thrashers' website, it would be painfully clear who the owners were. And you wouldn't see Stan Kasten's name on the list of owners. Prior to that, Time Warner was the owner. The Thrashers have never had "unclear" ownership.

Quote:

Owner lovers do not like what he said so they try to show as large a distance as possible from him and them exist.

I've got no problem with what he said. He's entitled to his beliefs. I just don't like it when people misrepresent his position when they use his quotes. That's why I tried to clarify that, yes, he did indeed have a position of power (largely a symbolic resume-padding one) with the team but that a.) he doesn't any longer, and b.) the position was never the one you said it was. I think there's a pretty important distinction between a current owner saying one thing and a former president saying another.

Even if one team makes $100 million or whatever less than another, that team still has the revenue to sign anybody it wants cap or no cap,and they still make a profit. There are no poor teams.

What about Michael Vick people will ask. Atlanta just signed him to a 10 year deal(and with the way he plays, that is really ill advised). Well, thats great, but it includes a $37 million signing bonus. The NFL generates about 3 times the revenue of the NHL. So in NHL terms, that $37 million is roughly $12 million. How could Calgary or Edmonton afford that bonus (upfront) to keep their stars?

There are no poor teams largely because of the cap. Teams have the revenue to sign any player they want because of the cap. It's really very simple. Without the cap, player salaries would spiral well above current levels because teams, particularly the richer teams, would be unleashed to spend as much as they could for the better players in a competitive bidding process.
For example, the Skins, with $100 million more money to play with than the Colts, could easily outbid Indy for Peyton Manning's services and still have millions left over. And an independently wealthy guy like Dan Snyder would do that in the blink of an eye without the cap to keep him under control.
This would force smaller market teams to either spend above their means or simply be less competitive. The idea that NFL teams make so much money they would be fine without cap is blatantly wrong.

As for the bonus money, it's irrelevant. The NFL is the only league that hands out such large bonuses. Why? Because there are no guaranteed contracts in the NFL. The bonus dollars are the only sure thing for NFL players. However, since the NHL apparently has no plans to do away with guaranteed contracts, there's no need for for either the teams or the players for huge bonuses.

Even if one team makes $100 million or whatever less than another, that team still has the revenue to sign anybody it wants cap or no cap,and they still make a profit. There are no poor teams.

What about Michael Vick people will ask. Atlanta just signed him to a 10 year deal(and with the way he plays, that is really ill advised). Well, thats great, but it includes a $37 million signing bonus. The NFL generates about 3 times the revenue of the NHL. So in NHL terms, that $37 million is roughly $12 million. How could Calgary or Edmonton afford that bonus (upfront) to keep their stars?

Keep in mind that not all signing bonuses are paid up front. Infact most are paid over legnth of the contract. The real objective of the huge signing bonus is to make teams decide early on, after the season is over, if they will cut or not cut the player.

The contracts are not guaranteed. Having a bonus of 37 million doesn't mean they will collect all of most of...

Keep in mind that not all signing bonuses are paid up front. Infact most are paid over legnth of the contract. The real objective of the huge signing bonus is to make teams decide early on, after the season is over, if they will cut or not cut the player.

The contracts are not guaranteed. Having a bonus of 37 million doesn't mean they will collect all of most of...

Actually, it does mean Vick will collect all $37 million. Today, in fact.
However, for cap purposes that money will be spread over the length of the contract. Or, more accurately, over the next six years. I believe there is a rule that says bonuses can be spread out no longer than six years under the cap.

Actually, it does mean Vick will collect all $37 million. Today, in fact.
However, for cap purposes that money will be spread over the length of the contract. Or, more accurately, over the next six years. I believe there is a rule that says bonuses can be spread out no longer than six years under the cap.

Are you sure? I have seen this discussed on ESPN in the past, and they talked about the signing bonus. It is usually paid out over the contract and if he is released...

Are you sure? I have seen this discussed on ESPN in the past, and they talked about the signing bonus. It is usually paid out over the contract and if he is released...

No, signing bonuses are paid upfront, in full. The money counts against the cap, but is pro-rated either over the life of the deal, or the first six years-I don't know off hand. If a player is cut, the pro-rated money isn't prorated anymore and whatever's left counts in full against that teams cap in the year they cut the player.

It's not revenue sharing so much as it is the cap that makes big market vs. small market an irrelevancy in the NFL.
The fact remains that, despite revenue sharing - which accounts for only 2/3 of total revenues - NFL teams in larger markets make more money in a given year than teams in smaller markets.
This from a USA Today story over the summer:With changing economics driven largely by stadium deals (and luxury boxes), the difference in annual revenue for the richest teams, such as the Redskins, and lower-revenue teams, such as the Colts, is more than $100 million, according to some NFL executives.
So, as you can see, there are significant revenue disparities in the NFL despite revenue sharing.
What prevents those disparities from influencing teams' ability to compete on a mostly level playing field is the cap. Therefore, Indy can re-sign Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison to long-term deals despite having $100 million less in the bank than the Redskins. Ditto for the Packers and Favre, the Chargers and Tomlinson, the Vikings and Moss, etc.

Here are Paul Tagliabue's comments to the Senate Judicary Committee on revenue sharing:

"Approximately 60 percent of the revenues of the average NFL club today come from the joint presentation of NFL games on national television networks. These revenues are shared equally among all clubs without regard to any club’s market size or revenue potential.

As a result of the sharing of these and other revenues, the economic advantages of the clubs in the better-situated markets are balanced, albeit not always fully offset, by revenue sharing with the clubs in smaller, less well situated communities, such as Buffalo, Cincinnati, Green Bay, Indianapolis, Kansas City, or New Orleans.

We have also instituted supplemental revenue sharing policies to give additional direct financial support to clubs whose revenues may otherwise be insufficient to field a competitive team. "

Here are Paul Tagliabue's comments to the Senate Judicary Committee on revenue sharing:

"Approximately 60 percent of the revenues of the average NFL club today come from the joint presentation of NFL games on national television networks. These revenues are shared equally among all clubs without regard to any club’s market size or revenue potential.

As a result of the sharing of these and other revenues, the economic advantages of the clubs in the better-situated markets are balanced, albeit not always fully offset, by revenue sharing with the clubs in smaller, less well situated communities, such as Buffalo, Cincinnati, Green Bay, Indianapolis, Kansas City, or New Orleans.

We have also instituted supplemental revenue sharing policies to give additional direct financial support to clubs whose revenues may otherwise be insufficient to field a competitive team. "

And the NHL owners are free to set up whatever revenue sharing agreements they like.

It is NOT a CBA related issue.

If the NHLPA wants to make a case for getting a higher % of league revenues than the owners have offered, knock themselves out trying to sell it. The league has addressed their concerns by submitting a high minimum cap. How the owners meet that cap is THEIR problem. It is THEIR money to distribute profits and losses as they see fit.

Just don't pretend that revenue sharing is anything but the players trying to get their grubby hands on the big market profits and thus a higher % of league revenues.